1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.--This High Court Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 5-10-1994 dismissing the application moved by the appellants under section 12(2), C.P.C.
2. ' Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that Admiralty Suit being Suit No,725 of 1993 was filed by M/s. Ghaffar Corporation against m.v. Arabian Express, M/s. Sama Asia Shipping, M/s. Argonaftis (Pvt.) Ltd., and Chairman, Karachi Port Trust. Subsequently, the defendants No,3 and 4 above were struck off by an order passed on 7-6-1994. The prayer in the suit was as under:
(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order for arrest of the vessel m.v. Arabian Express presently beached at Manora near m.v. Himalaya and further order that the sale of the same under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court and direct that the proceeds of the vessel be deposited in this Court.
(ii) That pass a judgment and decree against the defendants jointly and severally with mark-up of 24% p.a. Until the judgment and decree and grant further mark-up at the same rate until the payment of decretal amounts.
3. ' Ghaffar Corporation, P.E.C.H. Society (Abdul Rahim Kazi, J)
(iii) Grant cost of the suit.
4. ' In the said suit an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. (C.M.A. No,840/94) was moved on 5- 6-1994 whereby the parties had compromised in the matter. This compromise was signed by the plaintiff, his Advocate Mr. S.Hassan Zafar, Mr. Akhtar A. Channer, Advocate for defendants Nos.1 and 2, Mr Mazhar, the Director of defendants Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Muhammad Asif, Captain of the vessel.
5. The order was passed on 7-61994 in terms of the above compromise and the suit against the defendants Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed. Thereafter an application being C.MA. No,904/94 was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder under Order XXI, Rule 1, C.P.C. Read with Rules 757 to 760, Rules under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act. This application was signed by the plaintiff Mahmood Ghaffar and his Advocate Mr.Hassan Zafar, Advocate, Mr.Akhtar Channer, Advocate for defendants and one Muhammad Asif on behalf of the defendants in the capacity as Captain of the vessel. This application came up for hearing on 29-6-1994 in presence of parties and also in presence of Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate who was appearing along with Mr.Akhtar Charmer, Advocate for defendants Nos.1 and 2, who are the judgment debtors. On this date the Captain of defendant No,1 and also Mr. 1.A. Ansari, his Chief Engineer and Raza Naqvi witness of sale transaction were present. The said application was disposed of by orders passed on the same date i,e, 29-6-1994. Thereafter the defendants moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. Being J.M.
6. No,29 of 1994 praying that the decree dated 7-6-1994 be set aside as the same were obtained by the Plaintiff/DH by misrepresentation and fraud. The said application was contested by the Plaintiff/DH who filed his counter-affidavit. The learned Single Judge after hearing the Advocates for the parties was pleased to reject this application. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
7. ' We have heard Mr.Raja Qureshi, the learned counsel for appellants. The main contention raised by the learned counsel is that the said order on compromise application was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud inasmuch as Mr.Akhtar Channer, Advocate was not authorised to enter into any such compromise on behalf of the defendants Nos.1 & 2. He has submitted that his Vakalatnama signed by the present defendants in the year 1993 and so also the application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. He further submits that subsequent to this the defendants had engaged M/s. Rashid Munir and M. Saleem. Advocates to appear on their behalf and, therefore, the said Mr.Akhtar Channer, Advocate had no authority to present the application for compromise in Court on 5-6-1994 as he was no more the Advocate of the defendants; and that thus a fraud and misrepresentation has been done in the present case. In these circumstances, we had issued notice to M/s. Akhtar Channer and Muhammad Saleem, Advocates. Mr. Akhtar Channer Advocate who was present in Court on 9-2-1995 recorded his statement wherein he has specifically stated that he was appointed Advocate by the defendants in the present suit. He has produced his Vakalatnama in the suit as Exh.1/A. The Vakalatnama shows the signatures of the present appellants (the defendant) Muhammad Mazhar had put his signature but the date under signature is written in Arabic while the signature itself in English. This date is also 12-5-1994. Mr Raja Qureshi, Advocate does not deny the signature to be that of the defendant. Mr.Akhtar Channer has also produced the certified photo stat copy of the compromise application as Exh.A. This application also shows that it was signed by the defendants in English but the date was put in Arabic which is 17th August, 1993. This application also bears the signature of the Captain of the vessel. The Vakalatnama Exh.1/A does include the power of compromise which shows that Advocate was duly authorised to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client. Now, therefore, specially when the signature of the two documents Exhs. 1-A and 1-B are not denied it stands established that Mr.Akhtar Channer, Advocate was authorised to enter into compromise on behalf of his client. Mr.Akhtar Channer has expressly stated that his such authority or his Vakalatnama were never revoked by the present appellants. It may be observed that mere engagement of another Advocate by a party does not ipso facto absolve the previously engaged counsel unless the counsel withdraws his power or his authority is revoked by the applicant. It may also be observed that when the subsequent application referred to above (C.M.A. No,904/94) came up from hearing Mr. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate the subsequently engaged counsel was also present in Court and it was in his presence that this second application was disposed of. This order of 29-6-1994 makes a reference to the compromise also but no objection whatsoever was raised by Mr. Muhammad Saleem with regard to this compromise. Accordingly, it does not lie in the mouth of the present appellant at this stage to deny the same. Reference to the cases of Mobile Eye Services of Pakistan v. Director Social Welfare PLD 1992 Karachi 183 and Bhooralal v. M.A. Ansari etc. 1993 M LD 238 would show that a compromise entered into by the Advocate on behalf of his client in a case where such authority is invested in him is very much binding on the party unless it is shown that the same is entered into by the Advocate for some purposes not contemplated therein, or for some extraneous reasons, which is not the allegation in the present case. In E these circumstances, we are of the view that the said compromise is very much binding on the appellant and the present appeal, therefore, is without any merit and the same is dismissed summarily along with Miscellaneous application.
8. ' Above are the reasons for the short order announced in Court on 9-2-1925.